In re DeLancey
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge
After allowing claims 8, 9, 11 and 13, drawn to structure, in appellant’s application for a patent relating to an oil burner and method of operating it, the Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office rejected method claim 12, the only remaining claim in the case. The examiner’s decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals and appeal is here taken from the board’s decision.
The invention involved here is concerned with the electrical ignition phase of the operation of liquid fuel burners of the type generally referred to as vaporizing or pot type burners. Such burners burn fuel oil…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Potts v. CreagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Whitlock Printing Press & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
- Greenwald Bros. v. EnochsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
- Faries Mfg. Co. v. George W. Brown & Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1902
- Mead Morrison Mfg. Co. v. Exeter Mach. WorksDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1912
3Cited by16 opinions
- Application of Philip A. Shaffer, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Application of BisleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
- Application of Claus L. SporckCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Application of OsplackCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
- In re DelanceyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.